Sunday, September 26, 2010

There was a line in the first Star Wars film - Darth Vader to Princess Lea over the obliteration of her home planet or something .... something like "Come now, Princess, let's not bandy semantics."

And so we come to the positioning of the Democratic party over the expiration of "The Bush Tax Cuts".

I keep hearing Democrats talk about "holding middle class tax cuts hostage", as if there is some sort of new tax cut the Democrats have been struggling to get by the Republican Superminority and the Republicans just won't let it happen.

And I just saw this David Axelrod clip from some ABC morning show talking once again about the Democrats being kept by the Republicans from extending a tax cut (doesn't mention it as very tax cut they railed against for years which is about to expire) to the middle class. The Republican want to extend the entire Bush tax cut so that small business owners will feel more comfortable in growing and expanding their businesses ... creating more jobs that are not dependent on tax money.

But the way Axelrod further spins it is even more telling. He says "they [Republicans] want to borrow another $700 Billion over the next 10 years to give for tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires." Of course, there are a lot of people making between $250K and $1,000,000 .... but never mind that for now.

The principle of the thing is, he talks about it as if the money is the government's money and that the government gives it away. Which isn't surprising because that's the way they want their issues voters to look at it. "Look, we, the Government gave this much money to your cause." See, the Government is generous, and they [the Democrats] are the most "generous" party in giving away their [the Government's] money.

But of course as we've pointed out numerous times, a tax break doesn't amount to giving people money. It amounts to taking less money from them. The top earners already pay the bulk of income taxes in this country -- which you'll never hear Democrats say. To hear them tell it, the Republicans are taking money from the rest of us and giving it to the wealthy. Which is an absolutely insane way of putting it. But remember this is the party that brought you that "depends on what the meaning of the word is is." This is what they do. Most politicians do it to some degree or the other, but the far Left has mastered it.

He says Republicans are going to "have to go back to their districts" and "explain to their constituents" why they are holding middle class tax cuts (again, this wouldn't amount to a tax cut for anyone anyway, it would amount to a lack of a tax "re-raising". What this, in effect is is a tax hike on everyone -- but since Dems are in such dire straits right now they are offering to exclude the middle class from the tax hike (and call it a tax cut, aren't they generous, again, after vilifying it when it was Bush's tax cut). Republicans are saying "no, keep the cuts in place for everyone, especially since we're in a recession". Democrats spin that as favoring the rich.

And the whole thing about giving tax breaks to the rich is what quadrupled the deficit is bunk. Out of control spending quadrupled the deficit. Both parties are guilty of this -- but guess which one pushes for faster, more, higher? They both need to cut it out. Lack of taxes doesn't cause deficits. Spending causes deficits.

In the end, Axelrod is saying here that failing to take in money the government isn't taking in now and hasn't taken in for years amounts to borrowing money to give to the rich.

Republicans, your constituents are smart enough to get it if you put it to them the way I have. And if you don't put it the way I have and take it to heart yourselves, don't look for the support of the Tea Party Movement next time primaries roll around. Got it?

Apparently the Underpants Gnomes came up with a money making plan that went thus:

Phase 1: Collect Underpants
Phase 2: ?

Phase 3: Profit

It reminded me of a cartoon (right) famous among geeks like me in the science and academic fields I saw back in the 80's when I was in college. Of course when you're working Calculus and Physics problems, you are supposed to show your work ... how you got from point A to point C, to make sure you understand and can justify your work.

Well apparently, and not surprisingly, someone else thought the same thing Morgan was thinking and it reminded them of the same cartoon it reminded me of, because somebody then spoofed the cartoon (below) ... rather well I might add.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

This is good. From Morgan. I know he wins a disproportionate number of these, but then again I spend a disproportionate amount of time reading House of Eratosthenes.

when a policy has been voted in, and a consensus arises that it’s been taken about as far as it should be taken, and the decision comes about whether to scale it back or to double-down — the voice that says we need to double-down, and to hell with anybody who has reservations about this, is a pretty good definition of “extremist” isn’t it?

And oddly, from people who have finally noticed -- where's the "hate"? It looks like at least a couple of people have actually gone and paid some attention to reality rather than the version being served up by the liberal activist media.

I think that to the extent that the BBC story seemed to actually "get" some of it, I think they still have it wrong -- or are reading the audience wrong when they think the audience is "subdued" or "confused". This isn't a rock concert. It isn't a protest event. He's talking about some pretty serious stuff here, and people are sitting and politely listening. Politely listening. An art that seems to be fading. Anyway, they're not confused. But the journalists are. It's just that this is all so new to them they haven't quite gotten out of the mode of thinking they're so tuned in that if they're confused, well then certainly these idiots are, too! We have to give them time.

And one Emily Zanotti on her American Princess blog, admittedly no fan of Mr. Beck, got her eyes opened at the recent Chicago Event not only by Mr. Beck himself, but by the "peaceful" "anti-hate" protest outside of the venue.

I do find myself drifting from Beck these days, but it's not out of any lack of respect for him or what he's doing. Deal is, I think for the most part he's served his purpose in my life. As far as he is entertaining and has his finger on the pulse of what is going on, I'll probably drop in on him often, but he's really said all he needs to say. I've bootstrapped myself with his help into being aware and active. I figured out a year ago where he was headed. We need to re-learn our core values, and be Constitutional Evangelists. While doing that, we need to remember to represent those values well. This is, in the long run, the only way to save the nation.

Because The Nation isn't borders. It isn't a flag. It's not cities or landmarks. And it's not the government, either. This nation is the idea that we were all created equal, and that Government should be limited in what power it wields to as large an extent as possible without deteriorating into anarchy. It's that Constitution. What does "Constitution" mean? Basically, it means "What it is made of". What is the United States of America made of? Its Constitution. If you want the details, read it. If you want the details on the details, read The Federalist Papers.

And the rest ... the social structure -- is up to us and our own institutions ... historically religious institutions, but also private charitable institutions & private educational institutions.

If Cass Sunstein wants to "Nudge" us, he shouldn't be able to use the coercive power of the Government to do it. He should form the private "Nudge" foundation and try to persuade people just like the Catholics and the Vegans and the Preservation Societies all have to do.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

I can't even remember what I was searching for on Google, but a link came up to an article on HuffPo from last April, and against my better judgement, I clicked on it.

It was an incoherent jet of verbal vomit by a self-proclaimed "infiltrator" who goes by Harmon Leon telling us all why he was disappointed in San Francisco for not, I don't know, doing what SEIU did in St. Louis? to a Tea Party Rally in San Francisco.

He vaguely compared them to the Klan, called them "Old", made some sort of issue about all the (*gasp!*) Red White and Blue, and seemed to have an issue with Russians comparing American Socialism to Soviet Socialism. Hell, what would they know about it?

One thing he was absolutely certain of, was that we're a bunch of dumb hicks. Imagine the stupidity it takes for someone to hold up a sign pointing to an infiltrator's stupid sign to point out that the infiltrator wasn't with us and it's not our stupid sign. I mean, what Luddites we must be to recognize messages we don't agree with and denounce them!

But the last picture and the first comment was what really stuck out at me. Apparently someone there had this sign (picture, left). Now I don't know who. For all we know it was an infiltrator. Maybe it was even Harmon himself. Or maybe it was a Tea Partier. Let's assume it was a Tea Partier.

The first comment was this:

I absolutely LOVE the Charlie Chaplin-Barack Obama sign. I wonder how many of these "above average income, above average college degrees, above average post-graduate degrees" wingnuts would actually know that the guy on the left isn't Hitler? I would love to see someone carry that at one of their rallies with a camera hidden in their "Uncle Sam" hat and watch the reaction. I will bet that fewer than 1% actually notice the difference.

Although, for the Teabaggers, it wouldn't make any difference since Charlie Chaplin was a socialist in reality. But it would be really, really funny to see if they noticed and if they knew that he was a socialist, not a national socialist. Ooh! Thar I go, Splittin' librul hairs agin. A sochlist is a sochlist whethr he's a nashnulust sochlist or not. Thar all Commies.

I don't suppose it would ever have occurred to GrumpyGrandpa that perhaps the fact that the guy on the Left (no irony there, eh?) isn't Hitler -- could have been the point of the sign (Only the Left could be that clever, I guess). He even goes on to note that Charlie Chaplin was, in fact, a Socialist. But the irony is still lost on him because he thinks even if we did know it was Charlie Chaplin and that he was a Socialist and the sign-holder was calling Obama a Socialist ... and Hitler was a different kind of Socialist ... that he was ... uh ... stupid because apparently GrumpyGrandpa knew for a fact that the sign holder must have meant Hitler. After all, that's what the media says we do, and Lord knows nobody on the Left ever compared a president to Hitler. Because, you know, Bush was all about Socialism ... right?

It's laughable that GrumpyGrandpa sees as a sign of stupidity that a sign not comparing Obama to Hitler and instead to another Socialist who wasn't a Nazi showed that Tea Partiers are too stupid to distinguish between two flavors of Socialism, but of course a sign directly comparing Bush to Hitler shows such brilliance because ... hell, I don't know, he lost me.

It's their self-assurance that they are the smart ones in this "debate" that is astounding. Ah, if it only were an actual debate where they'd argue the issues instead of how old we are or how stupidly patriotic we are or what color we tend to be, or what religion most of us seem to profess, or how stupid we must be, because, after all we disagree with them because we think Socialism is bad and of course they love Obama who isn't a Socialist .... and ... damn, they lost me again. Maybe I am stupid. Or maybe they just don't make any sense. Nah, clearly it's me. The NYT says so.

In all seriousness, I can distinguish between the flavors of Socialism much like I can distinguish between different kinds of animal scat, but in the end I don't want any of it on my plate. That doesn't mean I'm too stupid to distinguish them. It means I don't waste my time distinguishing between them when somebody is holding one of them on a plate as a choice and asking me which I want for dinner.

Andrew Breitbart continues to shed light on, and in this case hold a mirror up to ... the tactics behind Leftist protests by turning their tactics right back on them. As the kids say today, "Awesomesauce".

Monday, September 20, 2010

A principled, level-headed, conservative columnist and one of my favorites -- Debra Saunders -- is the Token Conservative Columnist at the SanFrancisco Chronicle -- has started a blog whose title aptly reflects that:

Saturday, September 18, 2010

So I'm sitting in this breakout session at a hemophilia conference this afternoon. My grandson has it. I get to learn all about it and how to deal with it at these things.

Anyway, it was a general male networking session (they had a female networking session in the next room. It sounded like they were having a lot more fun).

The guy running the discussion has hemophilia himself. And he's struggled with keeping insurance and getting treatment paid for, because ... well this is one expensive disease to treat, and severe hemophiliacs often run into lifetime insurance caps (typically $1 million). And I'll be honest with ya... it's really a tough one for me because I love my grandson as much as I've ever loved anybody, and if certain things happen to him it's gonna be expensive to fix him. Things that wouldn't be much of a big deal to you or me.

Anyway, this guy's talking to a room full of hemophiliacs and people related to hemophiliacs about insurance, and he drops a few matter-of-fact things about Obamacare that have to do with removing such caps, and one of the guys in the room brought up Missouri Prop C....

To my surprise the person leading the discussion said he voted for Prop C, adding that he didn't want this to turn into a political discussion -- but he stated his reason for doing it fairly concisely and accurately reflected what the general thrust of the proposition was about.

A guy in the back of the room in my row piped up and said that he must be misinformed, and that he couldn't understand why these people (anti-Obamacare people) didn't get it that "it" should be all about the time wasted by people trying to get health care and keep coverage and what a loss of productivity it is, and that it's supposed to be "one for all and all for one" and what's best for the "collective good"....

He then followed this by saying "Glenn Beck would probably label me a Socialist, BUT ..." and went back into language about productivity and the collective good, and when "the lightbulb" would go off about the productivity bit (again).

He brought up Glenn Beck by name several times in his rant.

I wanted to pipe up, but this was not the place for this discussion, and I knew it.

But what I wanted to ask him was "and would Glenn Beck be correct?" I mean, he's talking about central planning of "productivity" and of what's best for the "collective good", but he doesn't want to be "labeled" a Socialist.

I mean, here's the deal. Either Glenn Beck is wrong and this man is not a Socialist. Or Glenn Beck is right and he is one. If it's the former, please explain how central planning of productivity for the collective good isn't socialism. If it's the latter, then what does Glenn Beck have to do with any of this at all except to be used as a Negatively Branded Foil to discredit the argument that the government shouldn't be able to force you to buy a product?

Why is it that progressives can be counted upon to deny being Socialistic in one breath and defend Socialism in the next?

If you're a Socialist, embrace it, and let's go from there. Arguing with a person who is in a state of denial is typically a waste of time.

I also wanted to tell him that lightbulbs are going off all over the Progressive Western World (Europe, Canada) that there seems to be something fundamental about it that DOESN'T work -- in that it punishes those who make money and jobs and increases demand astronomically due to the lack of out-of-pocket expense. When demand goes up, either price goes up, or you ration. Or both. So you end up with an expensive, unresponsive health care system where money can't even buy you good care unless you go to a country that, *gasp* doesn't have a socialized health care system.

Bureaucrats decide when and what health care you will receive rather than you, you and your friends, you and your community, a benevolent doctor, etc. And costs to society most definitely do NOT go down unless healthcare is withheld.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

“When I vote for these new guys and they get sworn in, I want the House Speaker to pull a bunch of sneaky tricks. I want the IRS to become more onerous. I want to have to work all weekend long flailing around for records of any transaction my business might have spent more than fifty smackers a month on, in sheer terror that the IRS is going to take away everything I’ve ever had.”

Change you didn’t ask enough questions about.

Now that is the kind of ad that the RNC should be running this fall. I'm serious. Show some balls and tell it like it is.

And there it is in black and white, ladies and gentlemen --- the perfect Anti-Obama-Agenda slogan to campaign on for the next 2 years.

Change you didn’t ask enough questions about.*

I want the T-Shirt.

*probably because you were smeared as a racist if you did ask. This, of course, was the cynically brilliant plan from the beginning.

This morning on Fox & Friends a Democratic analyst/strategist (can't remember the guy's name) was being interviewed on the topic of the Tea Party backed candidates that won in yesterday's primaries, and what it "means".

His answer shows a bit of tone deafness, which, if they really use this strategy -- I hope it backfires: He said that it shows a civil war going on in the Republican Party (which is true, really) and that the message for Democrats is that the American People still want "Change". They haven't seen enough "Change".

Back in 2008, I was skeptical that the American people would buy a a meaningless catch word such as "Change". It means nothing. "Change" could mean you got to work today and found you got a pay raise or a promotion. It could also mean you got home and found your house had burned to the ground.

To the Democrats, "Change" means what they want it to mean, and their message is that the American people want "Change". Handy, that.

Fighting "Change" is, as Thomas Sowell put it over these semantic vaugeries, like "trying to punch the fog". The only way to fight it is to reveal it for what it is. The fog is a cloak for whatever it is the Democrats want to do. It's not the magical mists of Avalon. It's a tool being used to obscure an agenda from the people long enough to get the seats they need to get it enacted. And, of course, putting off it's actual enactment date far enough into the future so that nobody will notice the consequences before the concrete is set.

The Tea Party movement has largely been a snowballing group of Americans that see the agenda, and stand up and say "Socialism isn't change we want."

Moderates were sold a sensible sounding, centrist candidate who wanted to control spending, bridge partisanship, and finally bury the racial hatchet. They got none of these things. They got more government control, more taxes, all blame for anything thrown on the minority party, and a deck of race cards dealt fast and furiously at anyone who dares oppose him.

I hope this fall people remember this as the well-funded Democrats throw ad after ad painting these Tea Party backed candidates as scary radicals and let that paint slop over on the rest of Republicans even while the actual Republican party often refuses to support the Tea Party backed candidates.

The message for Republicans should be to go back to their base rather than trying to win over new Progressive friends, and the message for Democrats should be to take their party back from its uber-progressive leadership.

The message for Tea Partiers, as Dana Loesch put it this morning, is to put their money where their mouths are and get out and whip up support for these candidates financially and with rational argument.

The failure to make any serious attempt to understand the United States and its political culture is now more than smug, stupid and cynical (although it is certainly all those things). The perverse ignorance which allows the British liberal establishment to caricature America’s obsessive concern with its constitutional integrity as simply a front for bigotry (note the BBC’s derisive treatment of the Tea Party movement) is beyond silly: it now presents a real threat to the common cause which the nations of the Enlightenment must make if they are to see their way through the present danger.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Note Mr. Gates openly uses the term "Death Panel", before apologizing for it when talking about health care rationing and cost tradeoffs. Of course, it's only a cost tradeoff if it's the same person's money we're talking about. But we're talking about Other People's Money (OPM) here. Because it's the government.

You see, "Society" is only making that tradeoff because of the meddling of the Government in health care (and education for that matter) but let's just focus on health care.

If the government isn't paying for it -- if an insurance company is, or if grandma's family is making the decision ... how much they can afford to pay to keep grandma alive for the next three months... the family makes that decision (perhaps when they buy the health care plan they decide to buy).

Under a single-payer government health care plan there is no cost to weigh for the consumer. Only for the Government. So the government decides if you're worth keeping around. Not you or your family. Not your friends.

Yes, it does depend on how much money you have what kind of health insurance you can afford, or how much health care you can buy, just as it affects how much of a house or a car or whatever you can buy.

That. Is. Life. It's a little harsh sometimes, for sure. But YOU make the decisions based on YOUR resources. Not, "well, policy says 'not worth the trouble'!"

All during the "debate", their side was talking about what was literally in the bill's wording (when you could get them to talk about details in the bill at all rather than The Grand Idea or how evil/stupid their opponents were) ... and our side was talking about what the effect of the bill would be.

We said "it'll mean this will happen" and they said "Fear monger! That's not IN THE BILL!" and hence it was, to their eyes, "proven false". But now even proponents are openly admitting that that is exactly what we're talking about. Government officials being in charge of what care you get based on whether it's "worth it". To whom? By whose standards?

Regarding "original" Patriot Movement ... many of whom see the world through National Treasure and Divinci Code glasses ... there is a misconception that the current Tea Party Movement is an outgrowth of it. It's a misconception enthusiastically endorsed by the current administration along with the entire Left, because they desparately need to smear the tsunami of backlash against big government triggered by their recent massive power grab.

But that tsunami of regular center-right citizens was building during the Bush Administration and was finally sparked by Rick Santelli ... hardly a crazy Murrow-Building Bombing Militant Militia Member.

The fact of the matter is that original "Patriot Movement" has been overwhelmed by this tsunami and has been swept up into it rather than the other way around. Actually many of them are upset about it because the rest of us don't hold to the conspiracy theories that they hold dear.

The fact that they have been somewhat grudgingly swept up rather than (as I'm sure some dulusional ones might think has happened as well) doing the sweeping up does mean that yes, we have some whackos among us. But that doesn't make us all whackos, or the movement wacky. Far from it.

The left just hopes that those who pay little attention will never know the difference.

Last I heard, the Tea Party had a 54% approval rating among the general public. That is a formidible PR task for the Left to overcome indeed, and they are panicking.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

The little woman and I went to the 9/12 rally at the Arch in St. Louis today, mostly to be faces in the crowd. I think it's important for people to see that they are not alone in opposing the collectivist, statist tyrants in control of our government right now.

There were the usual signs, flags, and banners and people in patriotic garb. A raucous band in wigs and revolutionary war era looking costumes, and lots of speakers.

Some of the more entertaining speakers included Emery McClendon (Fort Wayne, IN), Dr. Gina Loudon (a 'hottie' by Cyndi's standards), Dick Morris, David Limbaugh (yup, that David Limbaugh), Dana Loesch, Sammy Kershaw (some country singer from Louisiana, who is running for Lt. Governor of Louisiana), Michael Prell (author of Underdogma), and Andre Harper.

Kershaw played a concert after the speakers got done, and Cyndi got some Mardi Gras beads without the usual performance required to get them.I would be remiss if I didn't make an unassailable crowd estimate. A few (like less than five) thousand. It was a nice day, though. There were a few Obamabots walking around, and you couldn't help but feel sorry for them.

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Other Peoples' Money. OPM. It's a term I've vowed to use more in conversations about politics. I think it cuts to the heart of the matter so many times.

I heard Axelrod this morning countering John Boehner's call to cut spending by saying that John Boehner wanted to "spend" 700 million dollars on tax cuts.

You don't "spend" tax cuts. Taking less money from other people is not "spending"money. It isn't the government's money to begin with. Refraining from taking it can't be spending it. The mindset is that it is all the Government's money and they generously deign to let us keep some of it rather than us reluctantly giving them some of ours to run the essential business of the nation.

Similarly, you can't be charitable with Other Peoples' Money.

’... your generosity is reflected in what you do with your own money, not in what you do with other people’s money. If I give a lot of money to charity, then I am generous. If you give a smaller fraction of your money to charity, then you are less generous. But if you want to tax me in order to give my money to charity, that does not make you generous.’ —Arnold Kling

Monday, September 06, 2010

When a certain progressive family member learned I was going to the Restoring Honor rally in Washington DC, she told my wife she thought it was to protest the Ground Zero Mosque. My wife told her no, it had nothing to do with it. But the progressive, as she commonly backs up her perceptions of things, insisted that she had "read it somewhere".

My wife again told her that this rally has been in the planning for almost a year, long before any of the Mosque Flap popped up. "Oh?" .... is the response she typically has when she has nothing further to say.

I got back, and was asked at dinner in front of her by some relatives "how was D.C.?" Well, in order not to get into it, I answered "crowded".

And when I checked my facebook page, I noticed another extremely progressive friend had posted a link to some Washington Post story on the rally and claiming that Beck had said that the unemployed are "un-American", and that she was surprised at Beck's "sudden" humility and his religious message.

Now I've been listening to the man for ... probably about 4 years now. And I knew that he doesn't believe that the unemployed are "un-American" ... so I knew that had to be wrong. And I also know he's been going down this American Revival path for at least a year, and that the man is humble and has been for quite some time.

I'm not terribly religious. But I respect it, and I know how inextricably it is intertwined in our culture. I am not one of those who insist on casting it out, like the proverbial baby with the bathwater. I think at worst it is a useful tool (which, like other tools, can be abused, no doubt) and at best ... it just might be true. At the very least, there is much truth in it. I recognize and restpect that truth and that good and this is why you often see me fighting to defend it here on these "pages".

Now I want to tell you a little bit about what I saw there. What I saw there was the America I grew up believing in. I saw good people from babies to the aged, families -- polite, courteous, respectful of one another. I saw several of the people we racist redneck "tea baggers" are supposed to hate among us, milling around just like everyone else -- comfortably, casually -- a part of the crowd, talking with people with whom they had something in common, and it wasn't skin color. I saw Americans. Not hyphenated ones.

I saw the few provocateurs in the crowd that I mentioned in the previous post left dangling as people were not taking their bait. The very fact that they were there as provocateurs in a crowd of supposedly angry hateful people with people paying little attention to them if any at all -- mainly to walk around them and give them their space -- made them look positively silly, and it was apparent in their body language. They were there looking for a fight to pin on us, and it was glaringly obvious who it was that was trying to start something. Not exactly the headlines they were looking for. And I don't think they got any headlines at all.

These were people, many of whom like me had spent the last 20 or more hours on a bus, sleeping in their bus seats the night before. A bunch of us also walked the 4 miles from RFK to the rally. We were hot. We were tired. But it was a Sunday walk in the park, even with a half-million people. People with strollers pushing their kids, carrying them on their shoulders, people greeting each other, meeting strangers. It was really quite a nice afternoon.

The few provocateurs in the crowd melted away pretty quickly. What really got me was the march of the counter-"protestors" ... but of course we weren't there protesting anything so counter-protestor is really the wrong word. The "Anti-Ralliers" ... deliberately marching across the stream of departing ralliers trying to get attention, and I believe hoping to start something much like the Congresssional Black Caucus' Alinsky inspired march through the health care bill protestors trying to provoke a headline response ... and upon getting none, made one up that nobody can produce any evidence for.

I think this was a brilliant move by Beck. Not only is he right that we won't restore America until we restore what is good and right and essential in historic American culture.